Dismissed¶36

Munegowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2025CRL.P/14264/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS petition contesting the trial court's refusal (order dated 25.10.2024, Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru Rural District) to recall P.Ws.1-3, including the 11-year-old POCSO victim P.W.11, for further cross-examination in Spl.C.No.871/2022; witnesses already extensively cross-examined; S.33(2) POCSO child-victim procedure noted; no interference with trial court order.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds that P.W.1 to P.W.3 were extensively cross examined by the defence. ¶30

Munegowda Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 25.10.2024 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru Rural District, rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 for further cross-examination, should be set aside under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS.

¶22

Court's answer

This Court finds that P.W.1 to P.W.3 were extensively cross examined by the defence.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

A victim who is a minor aged about 11 years cannot be called again and again to the court for the purpose of cross examination when it is clear from the material on record that she has been cross examined by the defence.

¶33

Key takeaways

This Court finds no good grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the recall application.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Justice Mohammad Nawaz), 05.11.2025 - CRL.P No. 14264 of 2024, filed under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS, dismissed. The petitioner, sole accused in POCSO trial Spl.C.No.871/2022 before the Special Court, challenged the order dated 25.10.2024 of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru Rural District, rejecting his application under S.311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.Ws.1-3, including the minor victim P.W.11 (aged about 11 years), for further cross-examination. The victim had been examined-in-chief on 09.06.2023 and cross-examined on 09.06.2023 and 22.06.2023, whereafter her cross-examination stood concluded; P.W.2 and P.W.3 were also fully cross-examined. The Sessions Judge, while rejecting, had observed that under S.33(2) POCSO questions to a child victim are to be communicated through the Special Court in a child-friendly atmosphere. The trial Court had, however, allowed cross-examination of P.Ws.6-8 who were not cross-examined. Holding that P.Ws.1-3 were extensively cross-examined and that a minor victim cannot be called again and again once cross-examined, the High Court found no good grounds to interfere and dismissed the petition.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:44920 CRL.P No. 14264 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14264 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MUNEGOWDA S/O OBAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A BIDALURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-562 110.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAKSHITH R., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, STATE BY VISHWANATHPURA PS, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALROE-560 001.

¶13

(BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-III, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU DATED 25.10.2024 IN SPL. C. NO. 871/2022.

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:44920 CRL.P No. 14264 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Learned HCGP takes notice for respondent/State.

¶22

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, rejecting his application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., to recall P.Ws.1, 2, and 3, for the purpose of further cross-examination.

¶23

Petitioner is the sole accused facing trial before the Special Court in Spcl.C.No.871/2022. As could be seen from the impugned order, P.W.11, victim girl is a minor aged about 11 years old. She was examined-in-chief on 09.06.2023. The defence cross examined her on the same day, as well as on 22.06.2023 . Thereafter, the cross examination was concluded and no further chief was conducted by the prosecution.

¶24

Similarly P.W.2 was examined on 22.06.2023 by the prosecution and she was cross examined on 09.08.2023. P.W.3 was examined in chief on 09.08.2023. Since on the same day, the defence took time for cross-examination, on

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:44920 CRL.P No. 14264 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

imposing a cost of Rs.250, he was permitted to cross-examine on 19.08.2023, on which day the said witness was also crossexamined.

¶29

The learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the application filed under Section 348 of BNSS (311 of Cr.P.C.) has observed that under Section 33 (2) of POCSO Act, whenever the victim is less than 16 years, the court is expected to follow the procedure under Section 33(2)of the POCSO Act and it is not only the duty of the court to create a child-friendly atmosphere, by allowing a family member or guardian, a friend or relative, to be present in the court, but the prosecutor and the counsel for accused have to communicate the questions to be put to the child to the Special Court, which shall in turn put those questions to the child. It is observed that the victim was partially cross examined on 09.06.2023 and she was further cross examined on 22.06.2023.

¶30

Similarly, learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration that P.W.2 and P.W.3 were fully cross examined. Even this court finds that P.W.1 to P.W.3 were extensively cross examined by the defence. As rightly observed by the trial

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44920 CRL.P No. 14264 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Court, victim who is a minor aged about 11 years cannot be called again and again to the court for the purpose of cross examination, when it is clear from the material on the record that she has been cross examined by the defence.

¶34

In the application, the defence had sought to summon P.W.6 to P.W.8 as well, for cross-examination. In so far as the said witnesses are concerned, the trial Court taking into consideration that they were not cross examined, permitted the defence to cross examine them and to that extent allowed the application.

¶35

It is submitted that, now the case is posted for arguments. This Court finds no good grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶36

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed .

¶37

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶38

AKV, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Munegowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munegowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

Akki Lakshmi Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraju B H Vs State of Karnataka

Hanumanthgowdakalmani Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Hajeera Tabsum Vs State by Karnataka

Sri Harshith M Suvarna Vs State of Karnataka